An enjoyable read but not what is says on the tin
|
I'd agree completely with the review already written about this book - as a piece of historical non-fiction it falls short. It is full of too many suppositions and the assigning of emotions to characters doesn't work in a factual book I'm afraid. There were several cases where comments were made such as "Jane would have been proud of such and such..." or "Jane would most probably have been there" or "Jane would almost certainly known of such and such happening.." which I found generally annoying.
My main take on the book is that it is basically another telling of the Anne Boleyn/Katherine Howard stories rather than being about Jane herself - no evidence is produced to prove that she wasn't the unpleasant person that history records her as.
That said, the book itself is an enjoyable read if you read it as a novel rather than a work of historical fact and I'd recommend reading it on that basis.
|
|
|
Great read but bad 'history'
|
Like so many 'popular' history books this is written by someone who is neither an academic nor a historian and I'm afraid in shows in her methodology, thinking and general approach. This is a book driven by a personal desire to vindicate a figure who has been vilified by history but sadly there is no evidence to offer the other side of the story (and plenty, although Fox denies or erases it, to support if not prove the conventional reading). As a result this book is full of 'might haves', 'probably', 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
Fox frequently attributes feelings and emotions to Jane Parker that other people had, along the lines of if everyone or even someone thought something then Jane must have too. Sometimes this might have been true, for example when discussing the impact of the young Henry VIII on young women of the court, but there is nothing to indicate that this is the case and so the whole (light) argument of the book is built on very flimsy and unstable foundations.
That said, this is a really enjoyable read if you stop thinking about it as history and view it as a novel. Fox has a flowing style and the ability to pick out telling detail that creates a vivid and real tapestry. Sometimes her style grates (colloquialisms such as Katherine's gyneacological history was "a nightmare" stand out, or Henry VIII loving 'executive toys' on his desk...) but generally this is a fascinating - if historically flawed - read.
Do also be aware that this really isn't - and can't be - the story of Jane Boleyn: two thirds of the book re-tell the story of the Boleyns and specifically Anne's triumph and fall, and the remaining third covers the other marriages and particularly Catharine Howard's fall and the execution of Jane.
Too many 'historians' are given the title without any actual training or background in history (google the recent howler of Veronica Buckley whose book on Mme de Maintenon had to be pulped because she thought a book written by an academic was an actual secret diary of Louis XVI - that no-one had ever used before?) and then are feted for excellent research. I'm afraid that despite her academically-impeccable husband John Guy, Fox falls into the same category as Sarah Gristwood, dare I say Alison Weir, and others. (Although to be fair the issue with Fox is the complete lack of sources, not her critical evaluation of them and their biases and reliability which is frequently the problem with other 'historians' e.g. Weir).
So overall I really enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it - but treat it like a Philippa Gregory novel rather than researched and verified 'history'.
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada